Rialto, CA Police Made to Wear Cameras, Use of Force Drops by Over Two-Thirds

Chris | InformationLiberationWhen cops in a Rialto, California were forced to wear cameras, their use of force dropped by over two-thirds. Additionally, the officers who were not made to wear the cameras used force twice as much as those who did. This strongly suggests the majority of the time police use force is unnecessary. In other words, the majority of the time these officers used force they were simply committing acts of violence which they don't feel comfortable committing if it's captured on film.

HERE'S a fraught encounter: one police officer, one civilian and anger felt by one or both. Afterward, it may be hard to sort out who did what to whom.

Now, some police departments are using miniaturized video cameras and their microphones to capture, in full detail, officers' interactions with civilians. The cameras are so small that they can be attached to a collar, a cap or even to the side of an officer's sunglasses. High-capacity battery packs can last for an extended shift. And all of the videos are uploaded automatically to a central server that serves as a kind of digital evidence locker.

William A. Farrar, the police chief in Rialto, Calif., has been investigating whether officers' use of video cameras can bring measurable benefits to relations between the police and civilians. Officers in Rialto, which has a population of about 100,000, already carry Taser weapons equipped with small video cameras that activate when the weapon is armed, and the officers have long worn digital audio recorders.
But when Mr. Farrar told his uniformed patrol officers of his plans to introduce the new, wearable video cameras, "it wasn't the easiest sell," he said, especially to some older officers who initially were "questioning why 'big brother' should see everything they do."

He said he reminded them that civilians could use their cellphones to record interactions, "so instead of relying on somebody else's partial picture of what occurred, why not have your own?" he asked. "In this way, you have the real one."

Last year, Mr. Farrar used the new wearable video cameras to conduct a continuing experiment in his department, in collaboration with Barak Ariel, a visiting fellow at the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge and an assistant professor at Hebrew University.

Half of Rialto's uniformed patrol officers on each week's schedule have been randomly assigned the cameras, also made by Taser International. Whenever officers wear the cameras, they are expected to activate them when they leave the patrol car to speak with a civilian.

A convenient feature of the camera is its "pre-event video buffer," which continuously records and holds the most recent 30 seconds of video when the camera is off. In this way, the initial activity that prompts the officer to turn on the camera is more likely to be captured automatically, too.

THE Rialto study began in February 2012 and will run until this July. The results from the first 12 months are striking. Even with only half of the 54 uniformed patrol officers wearing cameras at any given time, the department over all had an 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against officers, compared with the 12 months before the study, to 3 from 24.

Rialto's police officers also used force nearly 60 percent less often -- in 25 instances, compared with 61. When force was used, it was twice as likely to have been applied by the officers who weren't wearing cameras during that shift, the study found. And, lest skeptics think that the officers with cameras are selective about which encounters they record, Mr. Farrar noted that those officers who apply force while wearing a camera have always captured the incident on video.

As small as the cameras are, they seem to be noticeable to civilians, he said. "When you look at an officer," he said, "it kind of sticks out." Citizens have sometimes asked officers, "Hey, are you wearing a camera?" and the officers say they are, he reported.

But what about the privacy implications? Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, says: "We don't like the networks of police-run video cameras that are being set up in an increasing number of cities. We don't think the government should be watching over the population en masse." But requiring police officers to wear video cameras is different, he says: "When it comes to the citizenry watching the government, we like that."

Mr. Stanley says that all parties stand to benefit -- the public is protected from police misconduct, and officers are protected from bogus complaints. "There are many police officers who've had a cloud fall over them because of an unfounded accusation of abuse," he said. "Now police officers won't have to worry so much about that kind of thing."

Not only should every police officer should be forced to wear one of these cameras, their videos should be freely uploaded for crowd-sourcing by the general public on YouTube. If privacy for the general public is a concern, they could blur people's faces a la` Google street view.

Police love to say if you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide, yet all over the nation police unions virulently fight calls to force them to wear cameras.

Fact is, most cops have everything and more to hide.

Their job is to enforce criminally idiotic and anti-human laws written by criminal politicians, from the drug laws to thousands of idiotic regulations on the books, their job is no longer to arrest violent criminals and thieves but to aggress against non-violent, non-criminals -- which turns them into criminals themselves.

Rather than focus on fighting crime, the majority of the millionaire cop next door's work consists of extorting the general public for cash. For example, speed limits have been shown to have no effect on road safety, yet when the speed limit is 65 instead of 55, revenue for cops drops dramatically, hence most places the speed limit is 55, of course the general public still drives 70 regardless.

Think for a minute how idiotic their speeding laws are. It's called a "speed limit," yet everyone drives over them by at least a few miles per hour, this turns everyone into a so-called "criminal." Police can then pull anyone over and shake them down for cash as a result, though because people get outraged and it makes the news if they ticket people for driving just a few mph over the limit, they generally only shake down people driving 10 mph and above over the limit. Hence the limits are set artificially low. Meanwhile, at the same time, almost every time you see a cop driving on the road they're speeding and weaving around like a lunatic. These are stupid, idiotic laws, but of course, they were not written to be rational and uphold order, they were written to extort the general public of their hard earned money.

Fact is, these days if any average person actually saw what the average cop does all day they'd be shocked and appalled. In fact, when they see glimpses of how police act when they're killing people's dogs and shooting unarmed woodcarvers they are shocked and appalled, they just don't realize these are not "isolated incidents" but instead the rule.
_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

Of course, the other side of this is that all cops wearing cameras all the time means there is no longer such a thing as "Letting someone off with a warning". Every time an officer's camera views someone breaking some petty law, the question will be "Why didn't you arrest/cite this person".

Cops on the beat have total discretion over who they charge with what, if cops enforced every act of supposed law breaking the prisons would be filled with jay-walkers and the like. When cops spew excuses like "I'm just doing my job" or "I have to enforce the law" it's complete nonsense, those are just stock excuses to justify their anti-social behavior.

" Meanwhile, at the same time, almost every time you see a cop driving on the road they're speeding and weaving around like a lunatic"... yeah, one time I was following a NYS Trooper; we were going 85 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. He was displaying no lights or anything. Surprised I didn't get a ticket... or worse.

If these are made mandatory, what will keep the cops from figuring out how to disable these just like dashcams?

I feel much more secure knowing these guys can be kept in check by the filming public and would rather have mandatory information on the Glick-Decision made available to all cops than forcing everyone to pay for more cameras that can be fooled or disabled.

It's a fantastic idea. There's no civil liberties issue, since the cameras can only see what the police already are seeing, which they already have the right to testify to, and it prevents he said/she said. And it would help convictions, because you would have a much clearer idea of what happened, and much clearer and more compelling evidence for court.

It benefits absolutely everybody, police and public alike, except for criminals. The only people who could possibly be against it are criminals.

Which tells you something about any police department which would be against it.

BE AWARE OF THE LAWS IN YOUR STATE, I KNOW THE POLICE CHIEF SAID THE FOLLOWING.

"he reminded them that civilians could use their cellphones to record interactions, "so instead of relying on somebody else's partial picture of what occurred, why not have your own?" he asked. "In this way, you have the real one."

HOWEVER, COPS (DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU LIVE) CAN ARREST YOU ON THE SPOT FOR RECORDING THEM, ITS ONE OF THE WAYS THEY CAN LEGALLY SCREW YOU OVER.

Actually 999 you have a right to record ANY place you have a legal right to be. The only place this does NOT apply to government buildings such as courthouses. ALWAYS record police interaction and TELL them you are recording even though you don't have to tell them.

I have lived in Rialto since 1968 and have seen, first hand, the abusive tactics that Rialto Police employ. As a young man in 1990, I was stopped walking in Rialto, by several officers, snatched up and taken to RPD HQ. I was subjected to punches and other physical abuse and told to confess to a string of burglaries I knew nothing about. Throughout the ordeal, I was somewhat comforted in the thought that there was a camera mounted in the south end of the ceiling of the hallway in the back of the police station. The following day, I returned to RPD to file a complaint and ask if the incident was videotaped by the camera. I was told the camera hadn't functioned for some time and was told to leave under threat of arrest for filing a false report. That's how RPD rolls!
Several years ago, the Rialto City Council voted to disband the RPD because of corruption and abuse of the public. The RPD union fought, and won, a reprieve of the city council decision. Since the reprieve, the RPD's behavior has not changed. RPD continues to do business as usual as RPD use of force is out of control. It's no wonder the use of force by RPD has gone down as they are only now are able to be held accountable for their actions. The cameras need to become a permanent part of RPD's field equipment.
I feel that cameras on an officer's person is a good idea for all police in the field, however, as seen in many cases nationwide, the cameras only serve their purpose when they are turned on by the officer.

"HOWEVER, COPS (DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU LIVE) CAN ARREST YOU ON THE SPOT FOR RECORDING THEM, ITS ONE OF THE WAYS THEY CAN LEGALLY SCREW YOU OVER."

You couldn't be more wrong! Federal case law says you can videotape any public servant in the course of their duties. There is no expectation of privacy. LEOs who attempt to enforce state or local laws to the contrary are being successfully sued for denying citizens rights to video and audio record encounters with any public official.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.